Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol, so many people posting here misread the OP and attacked what they thought was the source, and every single attacker was a right winger. Do you all rely so much on TV because it's easier than reading?
Who's doing the attacking here.... That would be you left wingnuts that do most of the attacking. When anyone on here that differs from your opinion offers facts it's deemed "not part of this argument."
I have never seen so many stupid, stupid people in my life.
Your government has taken so much of the funds of social security for their own uses that the system is on the verge of bankruptcy. This is reliable to you?
Umm, you'd better learn a little more about how Social Security operates. Since 1983, SS taxes have been pegged at a level higher than that needed to fund payment of current benefits. The surpluses have been and continue to be set aside as a reserve so that the system will be able to swallow the demographic blip that retirement of the baby boomers will create. Those excess funds are invested so as to earn competitive market-based rates of return while adhering to conservation of principal as the primary investment objective. Accordingly, those investments are in the safest investment vehicle in the history of the world -- US Treasury securities, the very thing that everyone was trying to run off to in a "flight to safety" as stock markets plummeted last Fall.
Cash proceeds from all sales of US government securities are deposited to the Treasury General Fund, from which they may be transferred as funds are appropriated to operating agencies. In other words, the cash proceeds of givernment bond sales are used for approved government purposes, just as the cash proceeds from school bond sales are used for approved school purposes, and the cash proceeds of corporate bond sales are used for approved corporate purposes. This is sort of the purpose of selling bonds or other securities to begin with. If you find this objectionable, then you are raising questions over the existence of capital markets at all.
Meanwhile, even the pessimistic projections of the SS Trustees utilizing data from the economic downturn concede that SS is 100% fine exactly as is for about another three decades. As Mark Twain might say, rumors of its death have been gretaly exaggerated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predos
Are these the same food stamps that are constantly being cited in the news as being fraudulently by millions, accessed by those not truly eligible for them and sold for drugs? 2%? BS, as is your claim of success.
No, those would not be news reports. Those would be bogus right-wing propaganda reports and rumors that anyone actually paying attention to periodic audits and reviews of the food stamp program would recognize immediately as complete frauds. Since you don't do that, you fell short of being able to recognize when you were being lied to.
Here's a recent actual news report from Pennsylvania, which has one of the toughest state food stamp enforcement regimes in the country. See if the data there comport better with what I've been saying or what you've been imagining after taking your daily dose of right-wing balderdash.
Who's doing the attacking here.... That would be you left wingnuts that do most of the attacking. When anyone on here that differs from your opinion offers facts it's deemed "not part of this argument."
I have never seen so many stupid, stupid people in my life.
To reiterate, it's been right wingers and right wingers only who couldnt even comprehend the original post and addressed their replies to "Jamie Lee" or commented on actors in Hollywood.
Umm, you'd better learn a little more about how Social Security operates. Since 1983, SS taxes have been pegged at a level higher than that needed to fund payment of current benefits. The surpluses have been and continue to be set aside as a reserve so that the system will be able to swallow the demographic blip that retirement of the baby boomers will create. Those excess funds are invested so as to earn competitive market-based rates of return while adhering to conservation of principal as the primary investment objective. Accordingly, those investments are in the safest investment vehicle in the history of the world -- US Treasury securities, the very thing that everyone was trying to run off to in a "flight to safety" as stock markets plummeted last Fall.
Cash proceeds from all sales of US government securities are deposited to the Treasury General Fund, from which they may be transferred as funds are appropriated to operating agencies. In other words, the cash proceeds of government bond sales are used for approved government purposes, just as the cash proceeds from school bond sales are used for approved school purposes, and the cash proceeds of corporate bond sales are used for approved corporate purposes. This is sort of the purpose of selling bonds or other securities to begin with. If you find this objectionable, then you are raising questions over the existence of capital markets at all.
Meanwhile, even the pessimistic projections of the SS Trustees utilizing data from the economic downturn concede that SS is 100% fine exactly as is for about another three decades. As Mark Twain might say, rumors of its death have been gretaly exaggerated.
No, those would not be news reports. Those would be bogus right-wing propaganda reports and rumors that anyone actually paying attention to periodic audits and reviews of the food stamp program would recognize immediately as complete frauds. Since you don't do that, you fell short of being able to recognize when you were being lied to.
Here's a recent actual news report from Pennsylvania, which has one of the toughest state food stamp enforcement regimes in the country. See if the data there comport better with what I've been saying or what you've been imagining after taking your daily dose of right-wing balderdash.
There must be, or so you are told, a wonderful climate there is liberal land. Nothing to think about (it is all done for you), no true news to consider (it is all sanitized with the overlords decrees for your consumption) and all you have to do is parrot what your masters feed you. Truly a wonderful, if robotic, existance.
OK the first point the reason lowering reimbursement to providers doesn't contain costs is because those hundred people getting a 100 tests at $450 a pop isn't static. What happens when there are 200 people getting the test the savings are wiped out.
No, they get multiplied. Instead of 100 people saving $50 apeice, 200 people save $50 apiece. I don't see how this can be so confusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
If you are increasing access to health care you will increase the number of tests. You have to keep the number of test static (rationing) in order to realize savings.
Unbelievable. No one wants to cap the levels of health care to those being provided today. That would be an absurd idea. Health services are an expanding industry. There will be more and more of it, but no one will be able to afford any of it if trends in unit and per capita costs are not reversed. You just aren't in this debate at all if you believe that there is either any thought or any necessity for freezing the numbers of pap smears or flu shots to the numbers that we see today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
You imply that providers will be able to recoup lowered reimbursement by increasing volume which is exactly the wrong kind of incentive. We should be encouraging lower usage of resources not greater. Get you calculator checked.
No, it's actually providers who've come up with that idea. The reason why drug companies and doctors and hospitals and medical device manufacturers have been able to negotiate price cuts with the administration is that they recognize that a smaller per-patient profit can work out very well for them if the number of patients increases as well. If the rpoviders can handle this sort of math, you should be able to also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Look by the snarky tone of you reply I can see you are not interested in genuine dialogue . I am not going to waste time replying to all of this but suffice it to say it is about as accurate as your first premise.
I haven't counted on a genuine dialog. That's a very rare thing around these parts. It requires at least two people who are willing to play by the rules. I don't that often jump into a discussion until someone has violated the rules already. It doesn't typically take very long for that to happen. If you wanted to serve as a partner in a genuine dialog on health care, you'd have to drop all the BS and fealty to right-wing garbage sources and start talking about the actual problems and what might be the actual solutions. Until then, I'll content myself with pointing out to you and to others ever more of this fact and reason stuff that you can pretend to counter and then walk away from.
You are simply not serious about a dialogue. You some how believe that our system is awful and every other system is nirvana.
Run away into misrepresentation by extremes. You said you could post problems regarding France's UHC. I added to the existing list of its advantages, but you still haven't posted the first problem. That hardly means that I don't think there are any, though it could mean that you don't actually know what they are. My only contention about the US system is that it is in serious trouble, and we have known that already for a long time, but done nothing about it. We need to switch off of the current track and onto another one or health care costs are evtually going to overwhelm the economy. Every other developed nation has faced these very same issues at one point or another, and all of them have ended up with some form of a UHC system. Those forms vary considerably. The French deride the UK system. They think it's socialized medicine, which they would never tolerate. There is plenty of room here to develop a US version -- one that like all the others, provides much broader health coverage at much lower cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
By denying other systems have serious problems as well prove that you have no interest in identifying constructive changes but simply are pushing your agenda. Much like the Democrats in congress, my way or the highway. This is why health care is dead. The left will never learn.
Blah-blah-blah. Lather-rinse-repeat. Every system has problems. The Japanese for instance sit down periodically and negotiate the price of everything down to the most minute detail, but if a global economic crisis comes along, oops. Those prices can get out of date in a hurry. The Taiwanese were once famoulsy outraged when the administrative costs of their UHC system suddenly soared out of control. Of course, they went from 1.5% to 2%, but a government was voted out of office over the waste of that kind of money, while here in the US, we can't get within TEN TIMES those numbers. It's the right that better wake up. There is no longer a viable alternative to health care reform. The clock is running out on the existing system. We will either modify that system in some substantial way, or it will effectively collapse, just as the Bushie credit markets did. We've had enough of that sort of crap for a while, I would think...
Probably the fact that social security is going broke, and medicare is riddled with fraud. In addition, how's the gubmint at managing it's money over the last 40 years? Those are probably what he/she was talking about.
Yes, they probably were, and all are examples of disinformation. Anybody who has studied Social Security understands that it is not "going broke" at all. The problems with Medicare are not primarily with the program, but with the delivery system it is trying to provide care through. And the fact that unscrupulous people try to defraud Medicare isn't the fault of the system any more than it is the fault of liquor stores and gas stations that they tend to get held up from time to time. And of course popular myths and legends about government this and that are no more meaningful than any other over-worn cultural stereotype. How any of these tired old saws is actually relevant as against the actual facts that were posted earlier was not made clear. Apparently, such iconic chanting is supposed to serve in the same way that a fact-dismissing Magic Wand would, but that's not the way things actually work.
All you do is ask questions and don't provide any answers. You keep asking "Why" but don't seem to bring anything intelligent to the debate...
Well, perhaps you missed a part of it, but when claims are made and then called, and the original claimant fails to offer any sort of meaningful support, or indeed when a question is asked and then walked away from, follow-up inquiries are not exceptional things.
As for intelligence, I don't know how many posts I now have in this thread, but at least very nearly all of them have dealt with correcting factual errors and faulty reasoning. If you don't see that as providing an intelligence upgrade, you might want to just put me on ignore, as I tend to get involved in quite a bit of that sort of thing, if only because these right-wing posters tend to offer so many opportunities to do so...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
